Trump, Clinton and Terror: Why their plans wouldn't have prevented the Orlando massacre

close

Video

Kurtz: Media's Orlando fairness marred by exceptions

'MediaBuzz' host reacts to press coverage in the wake of terror shooting

The heinous terror attack in Orlando doesn’t entirely fit either presidential candidate’s narrative.

It was inevitable that the worst mass shooting in American history, coming in the midst of the 2016 campaign, would become political fodder in a country that has suffered too many tragedies of this nature.

Hillary Clinton, in her initial statements on Orlando, spoke of the need to strengthen gun control. But Omar Mateen had a Florida gun license and bought his AR-15 rifle legally, so stricter background checks or gun-show restrictions would not have prevented him from acquiring the weapon.

Donald Trump, in his initial statements, referred again to his plan to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States. But Mateen was an American citizen already living here and would not have been affected by such a ban.

There is, quite obviously, no one-size-fits-all approach to combating the scourge of terrorism, especially in an era when a lone wolf like Mateen can pledge allegiance to ISIS and inflict mass casualties without the command and control of the terrorist organization.

But the responses of Trump and Clinton will resonate with many voters, even if the specifics don’t match what happened at the Pulse nightclub.

When Trump argues that Muslim immigrants must be banned for now because federal authorities can’t effectively screen them, well, Mateen was a Muslim of Afghan descent who had become radicalized. Trump’s pitch is that there are many more radical Islamic extremists just like Mateen who would love to get inside this country’s borders and wreak havoc.

And while he is making that case, Hillary Clinton and President Obama would not call the murder of 50 people Islamic terrorism. I have never fully understood their reluctance to do so. Trump pounced on the issue, saying the president should resign and Clinton should quit the race unless they are willing to use those words.

(Clinton told the “Today” show that it is pointless to argue over labels, that she has referred to radical jihadists and radical Islam, but that she doesn’t want to smear an entire religion because of those who pervert it for violence.)

In a similar vein, when Clinton and Obama renewed their call for tighter gun controls, that will appeal to those who believe deadly weapons are too readily available in America, even if such laws would not have stopped Mateen. Some people will wonder how a guy who was under FBI investigation for possible ties to terror was able to legally purchase an assault-style rifle and a handgun.

The Washington Post noted that assault-style rifles have been used in 14 public mass shootings over the last decade, half of them since last June. Bill Clinton successfully pushed for a ban on such weapons in 1994, but Congress let the ban expire in 2004, during the Bush administration.

One other undeniable factor is that Mateen, reflecting radical Islam’s hatred of homosexuality, targeted a gay bar. Most of the gay community has been in the Democratic fold, with Clinton and Obama, among others, reversing their earlier positions and strongly backing same-sex marriage. This may matter less than it did a decade ago, though, when George W. Bush and other Republicans were supporting a ban on gay marriage.

Trump drew some flak on Sunday for tweeting: “Appreciate the comments for being right on radical Islamic terrorism. I don’t want congrats, I want toughness and vigilance.” In another tweet he said: “I said this was going to happen- and it is only going to get worse.”

It probably would have been better if Trump had let one of his aides or surrogates make those points, as he seemed to make it about himself. Politico said the Orlando attack “exposed Donald Trump’s penchant for behaving reality-show small during moments that historically demand the stature of a president.”

But is the press holding Trump to a different standard? A New York Times story led off yesterday by saying Trump “sought to capitalize on a mass shooting,” and demonstrated “his willingness to flout convention and engage in a style of demagogic politics rarely displayed by a presidential nominee.”

Okay. But the story later noted that Clinton, after initially responding with restraint, said that “we need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals.”

Is that not “capitalizing” on a mass shooting as well? Clinton effectively used the gun control issue against Bernie Sanders in the primaries. And Obama has openly said after Newtown and other mass shootings that he wants to seize the moment to pass tougher gun legislation.

That, after all, is how the 1968 gun control law was passed, after the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.

Others are just interested in playing the blame game. New York's increasingly left-wing Daily News, which wants assault weapons banned, blared this insensitive headline on the cover: "THANKS, NRA."

With the country still numb from the shock of so many innocent people slaughtered in Florida, there is also a weariness that sets in as each political party reprises its standard attack lines on terror, guns and immigration. But it’s not reasonable to expect either Trump or Clinton to refrain from addressing what has sadly become the new normal in the age of terror.